Hillary Clinton Will Make A Bad President
Hillary Clinton Will Make A Bad President - 10/15/2007 (https://www.debate.org/debates/Hillary-Clinton-Will-Make-A-Bad-President/1/) Instigator: Phil (Pro) Contender: wryan (Con) Round 1 Phil: "Hillary Clinton would be a horrible president for several reasons: 1. Her economic policies of wealth redistribution will destroy the economy. Furthermore, the second she abolishes capital gains the markets will crash. 2. Her national health care system will lower the quality of health care for all Americans. 3. She has no guiding principles. Instead, she makes policy based on polls and what gives here the best public image. 4. Mrs. Clinton has never managed any organization of significance. Being a Senator just means that you show up 6-months out of the year and either vote on issues, or propose bills. Besides a tiny staff, Mrs. Clinton has never had to manage a group of thousands or even hundreds of people. How then can she be deemed to have the managerial skills and experience to manage millions of government employees and thousands of bureaucracies? 5. She is too divisive. Hillary and Bill have a record of pitting one group against another, in order to get political gain." wryan: "I'll just refute. 1. Wealth distribution will not destroy the economy, it will just even out personal financial gains a tiny amount. Furthermore, to abolish capitol ggains she would need to have a bill passed through the appropriate govering bodies. It is unlikely that it will pass. Furthermore, if people know that she willl be elected they will begin adjusting their stocks accordingly well before the actaul abolishment takes place, so there will be no one single crash. Furthermore, there are many people who will not leave the market, such as hedge funds etc, so the market will not completely crash. In addition, many stocks are so steady they would probably not be affected, for example Berkshire Hathaway. Another point you are missing is foreign investors. When the capital gains tax does not apply to them, they will likely stay in the market and help to keep it stable. Finally, thereis a good chance that the market could easily recover from such a crash, as buying surges when stock prices go down. 2. Having health care, even if it is not fantastic, is still better than having none at all, as do many uninsured americans. 3. Making policy based on polls and public image is the purest example of democracy. A president who bases their policies on what the people want is a very good president indeed. 4. She has managed a health care initiative of 500+, and she was a close adviser to Bill Clinton, who was a president and as such had the staff and a beauracracy of one. So she definitely has experience. Furthermore, her style of governing very much relies on advisers and helpers, meaning a "lack of experience" (Which I dont think exists), is no issue. 5. If she is elected president she will not in fact be divisive, she will have won by a majority. Furthermore, noe of the other candidates, Democrats or Republicans, have as large a percentage of voters supporting them as Hillary does. So therefore she is the least divisive. Furthermore, you give no examples of when she has pit groups against eachother for political gain. As a final note, it is unfair to say that everything Bill Clinton did was also done by her." Round 2 Phil: "Hello wryan, and thank you for accepting my challenge to debate this topic. Let me first set the record straight: 1. Wealth redistribution is one of the most outrageous concepts in our capitalistic democracy. I feel sorry for you that you even think it's principally justified to take one's wealth, albeit earned or not, and give it to someone of lesser wealth, for any purpose, and especially to "even out personal financial gains a tiny amount". This is a classic case of the Clinton's pitting one group against another. Hillary (and Bill) has been attacking the wealthy, including businesses, for the sole purpose of getting the votes of those people who aren't wealthy. Hillary uses this method to conquer and divide. And, with a Democratic congress, if she were elected president, she may very well be able to deliver on her promises to steel from the wealthy. This very thing is what Hitler did in order to gain power, and maintain it. Hitler pitted the middle and lower class against a group of wealthy people, the Jewish people. He made a target out of them, and gave the other people a group of people to hate. The similarities are disgusting and frightening. Hillary is advocating abolishing capital gains, so your argument that a bill would need to be passed is beside the point. I'm curious though, would share an A+ you received in math with someone who only received a C? No, because you would have EARNED the A+, just like the person who EARNED the C. 2. Having socialized healthcare is not better than having no health care because more people are adversely affected than not. Just ask all of the people in Canada, France, and the UK that cannot get dire operations for seven or more months because the doctors don't exist, nor do the medical resources. Right now we have a choice when it comes to our medical care, and supporting Hillary Clinton, who has no experience in the medical industry, would undoubtedly take that choice away. Americans who don't have health insurance have made that choice, and nowhere in our Constitution does it say the government's role is to provide free health care. To the contrary we are guaranteed the "pursuit of happiness", not the guarantee of happiness, nor health, nor wealth. If you want to live in a socialized society, then move to anyone of the failing countries in Europe. 3. First, polls are totally untrustworthy, inaccurate, and the fact you think our leaders should make decisions on the polls of a biased media, whose questions are loaded in order to receive a specific answer, is irresponsible. Just look back at the exit polls in the last elections where Kerry and Gore were supposedly the clear winners. Furthermore, why even have leaders in your proposed world? Just take a poll, right? Wrong, we need to elect leaders based on their PRINCIPLES, and trust them to let those principles guide them when decisions need to be made. In Hillary's case, I would argue she lacks any principles. She will stick finger in the air, and like a true politician will say whatever gets her elected. 4. I'm sorry, but your argument again holds no water. Hillary Clinton has absolutely no experience in the health care industry…none. She is simply offering free goodies without regard to the destruction her policies will cause to this country, solely to be elected. By relying on advisers and helpers, do you mean like her husband Bill? Maybe she'll bring back Monica Lewinsky. Or, maybe we'll get Sandy Berger back who stole from the intelligence archives secret documents and hid them in his underwear and socks in order to cover up Bill's foreign failures. The Clinton's advisors are the most corrupt, money hungry, power hungry group of people to hit Washington. This is further backed up by the hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal funds she received from Chinese dishwashers and waiters who don't even exist. Of course, I'm sure you're not referring to the fundraising staff as her advisors and helpers. 5. Being divisive has nothing to do with winning 51% of the vote. Being divisive is the process of pitting one group against another, in this case the middle and lower class, against the wealthy and corporations. Also, I never said, "everything Bill Clinton did was also done by her." I said, both Bill and Hillary have a track record of using divisive politics to win elections. That was my only mention of Bill in my opening argument. But, since Hillary has chosen to stand by her man, I would say she is equally responsible. If she was a true feminist, and a true leader, she would have left Bill years ago. Instead, she stayed with him for political gain. On a side note, you are clearly not going to change your mind about Hillary, and neither am I. So, I'd like to point out some blatant lies Hillary has told the American people. I'm sure you'll just ignore them. http://www.hillaryproject.com..." wryan: "1. First of all, Hilary has never advocated wealth redistribution as such. She is not forcing anyone to hand over their money so she can give it to the poor. All she is doing is bringing capitol gains tax a bit closer to what normal taxes are at. As it stands, capitol gains tax can be as low as 5%, whereas ordinary income tax is 35%. I see no reson not to even these two out a bit. As it is, all that a lower capitol gain's tax will do is give more power to the elite, those who can afford to invest money in the stock market, and wealthy businessman who have shares of their companie's stock. I see no reason that money earned gambling in the stock market should be taxed less than money earned through honest labor. There is absolutely no coorrelation between what Hitler is doing and what Hilary clinton is doing. They are two entirely different situations. Quite frankly, in my opinion, comparing Hitler to Hillary should discredit your whole argment right there. As to your analogy, it does not apply to the issue at hand. Lets say that evryone who's parents make more than 100,000 a year automatically gets one letter grade higher than the children of poorer parent's, and children whose parents make less than 40,000 a year automatically get one letter grade less. How is this a fair arraingement? All Hillary is doing is evening things out somewhat. 2. Your statement that having socialized health care would be bad is irrelevent. What Hillary is proposing is NOT SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE. All she is proposing is that employers must provide healthcare coverage to all their employees through HMO's. This is not socialized medicine. The HMO's, or health maitenance organizations, will still have to compete for business, which means they will still have an incentive to provide fast, efficient health care. Right now, American health care is the most expensive in the world, and it is quickly getting even more expensive. Ms. Clinton's law would curtail the rampant rise in cost and provide healthcare to EMPLOYEEs of companies, without jeapordizing the quality of healthcare. NEarly every one of the former opponents to her plan have changed their minds, in fact, most Healthcare providers, Hospital organisations, and drug companies support her now. As to your argument that the constitution doesn't include free healthcare, well, it doesn't have anything about punishing murderer's either. The constitution is by no means the be all, end all, list of laws in the US. Right now only 84% of all Americans are covered by healthcare, and even then, they often can not afford critical operations. THERE IS NO REASON WHY PEOPLE SHOULD DIE OF TREATABLE DISEASES JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR. I see nothing wrong with changing that. (As to the lack of experience, experience in every field imaginable is not necessary to be president. Even if it was, she has experience; she headed a 500+ person healthcare intitiative for 3 years.) 3. Polls are not untrustworthy or innaccurate. Guess how our national elections are decided? BY A POLL. That is all that voting is. And furthermore, the questions on the polls are, to quote, "Which of the candidatesdo you support?" How is this innaccurate, misleading, or biased? And as far as the exit polls, Gore DID win the popular vote. What polls show is the popular vote, not the electoral vote. It is possCITIZENS VOTE FOR HIM), and still lose the electoral vote (i.e. HAD MORE ELECTORS VOTE FOR HIM), as happened in 2004. And Kerry lost in the exit polls, so your point is irrelevant. She does have principles, it just so happens that her principles happen to coincide with the will of the people, which is what a president's principle's should do. 4. I have already said that she has experience in the healthcare industry. I will not repeat myself for a third time. If you actually read her bill rather than reading what her opponents say the bill is, you would see that it is well thought out and effective. Furthermore, I would say that it is insulting to call life saving healthcare coverage "goodies". I have been unable to find any evidence to support your "Chinese Dishwashers" and I will not argue an issue that does not exist. Suffice it to say, that there has been no evidence to support this. As to your other argument, that her advisers are greedy, power hungry, and so on, you provide no support for this either. All you are saying here is unsupported rhetoric. Please provide some support for those points. 5. She is not pitting the middle class and lower class against the rich. How do you think she got so much in campaign donations if the rich did not support her? Irregardless, the rich and corporations are an indescribably small segment of the population when compared to how many poor and middle class there are. The wealthy and corporations only represent roughly a tenth of the population. I would argue that what Hillary is doing is supporting the right of an overwhelming majority in a democracy to dictate what happens" Round 3 Phil: "Wryan, School grades aren't tied into someone's wealth. They are directly related to one's hard work. Just like in the free markets. You summed up perfectly how a democracy dies. "...the rich and corporations are an indescribably small segment of the population...and...represent roughly a tenth of the population. I would argue that what Hillary is doing is supporting the right of an overwhelming majority in a democracy to dictate what happens." Congratulations, you're a socialist, or possibly even a communist. You are pushing an agenda that has failed time and time again, strips people of their liberties and freedoms, and has caused the mass murder of millions in order to maintain power and control. You know nothing of history, and nothing of Hitler and how he came to power through the exact same political strategy. You haven't the slightest idea how our democracy works, and how it has come to flourish. You have no understanding of the forces that drive the economy. It's very sad that you think it is justified to take another's wealth and give it to someone to whom it doesn't belong. Worse yet, you are either blind to Hillary's own words, or are choosing to ignore them because you would be on the receiving end of her wealth redistrubtion programs. Lastly, there has NEVER been a socialized health care system that has worked. I'm closing this debate with Hillary's own words. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - June 28, 2004 "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own' society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we're all in it together' society." - May, 2007 "The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the direction of independence." - Feb 2, 2007" wryan: "You have a good point. School grades are NOT related to wealth, and your analogies were completely irrelevant. All I am saying is that currently it is very easy for the rich to get richer and very easyfor the poor to get poorer, and all Hillary would do is even out this imbalance. I am not a communist or a socialist. For your information, America is ALREADY A SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY. WE HAVE PUBLIC SCHOOL WELFARE AND MEDICARE. HILLARY IS NOT MAKING US ANYMORE SOCIALIST THEN WE ALREADY ARE. She is not doing ANYTHING to strip of us liberties and freedoms. SHE OPPOSED THE PATRIOT ACT, whereas President Bush, who you seem to support, MADE THE PATRIOT ACT. The patriot act did far more to hurt our liberties than any imagined socialist programs of Hillary's. I will repeat myself again, all Hillary is doing is evening things out. She is not forcibly taking money from anyone. All she is doing is taking away laws that made it much easier for the rich to get richer, as I have said before. There will be no forcible redistribution of wealth in any way, shape or form. There are no parallels between how Hitler and Hillary Clinton came to power. Until Hillary Clinton begins blaming Jews for every one of america's problems, burning down buildings to generate fear, and declaring martial law, she will be nothing like Hitler. This analogy is ridiculous and insults my intelligence and yours. I know very well how democracy works, why it has flourished, and the forces that drive the economy. I have invested in the stock market, I have extensively studied democracy and our system, and I am upper middle class. I would not be on the receiving end of her reforms. In general, I would say that you have not backed up any of your assertions with facts. All my opponent is doing is spouting rhetoric and outright lies. Whenever I have challenged him to support his opinions he does not, and insults me and my intellegence instead. He appears to be utterly unable to form any sort of cohesive, well reasoned argument and has very little knowledge of the actual issues. Instead, he outright ignores any of my points that prove him wrong and instead calls me an idiot. I could have refuted his entire closing statement by copy pasting my earlier argumments. He will not listen to new opinions or ideas different from his own, as he stated in his first refutation. It is impossible to debate someone who refuses to rely on facts whatsoever and ignores anything that proves him wrong. That is all."